On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 8:38 PM Takaya Saeki <takayas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The speed at which a new nice-to-have feature can be adopted is > > generally not something I worry about, it's a new *feature*, not a bug > > fix so if it takes some time to be fully adopted that is okay. What I > > do concern myself about is the quality and long term maintainability > > of the kernel code, especially when user visible changes are > > concerned. Adding kernel complexity for changes like this, especially > > when they can be handled in userspace is almost always going to be a > > no-go as far as I'm concerned. > > The perspective of long term maintainability being more important is completely > understandable. Also, your comments on the other alternatives are well-taken. > Thank you very much for your input. Then, I will update my patch based on the > full match, also reflecting your review comments. > > In the meantime, I'd like to confirm one remaining option that we haven't yet > discussed, just to consider all possibilities. If the concern is primarily > about the implementation rather than the behavior itself, would it be feasible > to implement prefix matching using a dedicated helper function instead of using > a trailing wildcard character like '*'?" While adding a helper function instead of a direct wildcard concatenation would change the implementation slightly, the higher level concerns around added complexity remain, and for that reason I remain opposed to such an approach. -- paul-moore.com
